Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

If this is more than just him pandering to his base, then he could actually start a civil war.

You keep repeating this silly jargon about another civil war in several threads.......

Suppose we go into another civil war... how do you think we'll be fighting it? The days of horses and bayonets and muskets are gone. Gun fights sound pretty romantic, but that is still too archaic. No, just few thousands of drones and fighter jets bombing the crap out of a region sounds more like it. You can have as many guns you want, went to as many survivalist drill as you needed, but the end result will be still the same. Stop frothing like a crazy person and start thinking more rationally. You are only showing your fear. Consider your past history in this forum, you are more than capable of voicing your opinion calmly and rationally. And please don't drop these words, "civil war" so casually. Guns won't go away, so stop panicking so much. At the same time, please keep in mind that some form of personal sacrifice is in store for all of us if we are seriously considering a meaningful change whether you like it or not.

__________________

Eat and sleep!Sig by RRW.Nanatsu no Taizai! Why haven't you watched it?Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.

When one side is playing parlor psychology (gun ownership = fear), the other side is quite likely to be upset about it when they *are* providing factual data. It works both ways.

Is it parlor psychology? Excusing sport (like skeet shooting), there are only two other reasons to use a gun: defense and attack. Classify it however you want, guns are made to kill. One of my first gun lessons was "if you're going to point it, be ready to fire it".

There are many ways you can have self defense without guns. A bat, a knife, pepper spray, taser, and so on. Why do people jump right to guns? Because a gun is intimidating when pointed at you. It's a weapon with high stopping power, high lethality, and even in the hands of an untrained person it can still be devastating. A gun represents the ultimate in security.

But why do you need that security? Sure, the world is dangerous, but when you look at how many gun owners there are, how fiercely so many of them defend the right to have them, and then you look at many of the common reasons why....it's not hard to see patterns.

Gun ownership tends to spike when society hits volatile periods. They spiked when the economy went south. They spiked during the elections. They spiked after each mass shooting. Fear absolutely plays a part. Fear the government will ban stuff. Fear of another mass shooting. Fear that the economy will turn the country into a lawless wasteland where a bullet determines if you get to get or keep your gas can.

Media does us no help, constantly hyping up the next super plague, or invasion, or bombing. It's also a reflection of society, just look at many of the recent games and movies. Violent, end of the world spectacles where scruffy middle aged men defend women and children from the monsters of their own creation. Fear runs rampant in our society. We're so afraid, we don't think. We don't consider our actions, or what they mean, or what they'll do.

Sure we can play the false equivalence like we do with political parties. "Both sides are at fault!" The reality is different, and the side that pushes gun ownership has historically pushed against anything that might get in their way of what they view is a fundamental second amendment right. Hate on gun control advocates, I guess, but it's not like they're entirely wrong in their desire to keep dangerous things out of dangerous hands. The only equivalency you can accuse both sides of is their stubborn refusal to look beyond their own agendas at the bigger picture. It's no different than Congress or the media and all of its hypocrisies, really.

We're a culture of hypocrites. We just don't like to admit it very often.

You keep repeating this silly jargon about another civil war in several threads.......

Suppose we go into another civil war... how do you think we'll be fighting it? The days of horses and bayonets and muskets are gone. Gun fights sound pretty romantic, but that is still too archaic. No, just few thousands of drones and fighter jets bombing the crap out of a region sounds more like it. You can have as many guns you want, went to as many survivalist drill as you needed, but the end result will be still the same. Stop frothing like a crazy person and start thinking more rationally. You are only showing your fear. Consider your past history in this forum, you are more than capable of voicing your opinion calmly and rationally. And please don't drop these words, "civil war" so casually. Guns won't go away, so stop panicking so much. At the same time, please keep in mind that some form of personal sacrifice is in store for all of us if we are seriously considering a meaningful change whether you like it or not.

Muskets and horses?
More like Mexico...present day, is what I keep hearing from police officers I know that are preparing for what they view as "bad times."

There are many ways you can have self defense without guns. A bat, a knife, pepper spray, taser, and so on. Why do people jump right to guns? Because a gun is intimidating when pointed at you. It's a weapon with high stopping power, high lethality, and even in the hands of an untrained person it can still be devastating. A gun represents the ultimate in security.

Its a "cold war" problem. You don't wander around with a bat when everyone who is likely to be a threat is using a gun. I also keep an emergency stash of food, etc for earthquakes. Does that mean I'm *prepared* for earthquake or that I *fear* an earthquake?

I'll make use of whatever weapons are available in a given situation but saying I'm "afraid" because a shotgun is an excellent tool for home defense purposes simply tells me someone doesn't want to actually discuss the topic, they simply want to label me so they feel better.

At the same time, please keep in mind that some form of personal sacrifice is in store for all of us if we are seriously considering a meaningful change whether you like it or not.

I'm more concerned whether or not the "sacrifice" will actually make any real difference. Banning "evil black rifles" and high-capacity magazines will not stop this. Real change has to come--real change to public healthcare, to education, to the entire paradigm of gun control laws. The existing laws are worthless. We don't need more "feel-good" laws that clearly demonstrate the lawmakers behind them don't know shit about firearms.

Even with all of this, even if we can stand to look in the mirror long enough to pick out all the cracks and flaws so we can fix them, a lock only keeps out an honest man. If someone wants to kill bad enough, they will not stop even if they have to bash out their victims' brains with a rock.

Even without any access to a gun, it's easy enough to make dangerous explosive devices with things that aren't even regulated or tracked at all. Anyone who's ever taken a chemistry class would know how to do it.

I have no sympathy for the crazies that are planning to overthrow a government but...

While it's true that civilians are no match for the military, there's certainly a lot of guerrilla warfare that could result. It's a significant factor, since hey, Afghanistan and Iraq should have been easy to pacify with all our drones and bombs right?

Not to mention a civil war in the United States would be akin to punching oneself in the face. Destroying one's own infrastructure and undergoing civil disorder would make it even harder. Oh, and civil disorder is always bad. Anyone remember why the United States lost to a rather backwards at the time country in Southeast Asia about 50 years ago?

But speaking of that...

All of this has got me thinking, and it's just such a clusterfuck.

I've posted before that we live in a culture of violence in the United States. Honestly, Vallen's comment about dead children actually does have some value, but viewing it from a series of singular incidents involving various psychopaths is not just the whole story. It actually blinds us to what is far worse. How many people have died directly or indirectly through US foreign policy? This doesn't mean nobody has benefited either, The country as a whole commits so many acts of violence, and let's not even count those indirect acts the CIA was involved in Southern and Latin America. In the name of security. Every time you trade a freedom for security, you are just making the problem worse. I can't tell you if it's for better or for worse.

But let's not even talk about that. Let's talk about the violence the government does to its own citizens. I've already brought up that the excessive incarceration this country partakes in but every time the government curtails someone's rights and tells them they cannot be who they are that is really an act of force and coercion. Why does this country have such a fucked up attitude towards sex and violence? Well...

Some of you might say "Well, China is worse, or if you don't like it, leave". Fair assertions, but we could use higher standards for a world power can't we?

At the same time, our draining economic power means that America's only #1 in... the military. Oh right, the only way to show you are better than others is by a show of force. Mines is bigger then theirs. This which almost destroyed the world not too long ago. Yet we continue to try to meddle with other people, to,force them to do what we want them to do.

Is it only natural that the people in this country use force with a weapon improperly? But that makes it less right to take away rights from the people that do use it properly. I truly believe we need the later more than we ever have.

Let's take the LA riots in 1992 as an example. The police abandoned Korean shopowners, and many were killed, injured, or lost all they had. A few took to the rooftops and were equipped with more than your typical pistol. I don't think they would have appreciated people taking away their rights to defend themselves at that time. So yes, you know, there might be a time where a stronger weapon helps.

Even without any access to a gun, it's easy enough to make dangerous explosive devices with things that aren't even regulated or tracked at all. Anyone who's ever taken a chemistry class would know how to do it.

Heck, a machete in close quarters is just as or more lethal as a firearm and it doesn't have to be reloaded. Easier to make, too.

If the society decides to disarm or restrict law-abiding citizens, I'll follow the law -- but it just means I'll migrate to other defensive tools appropriate to the tactical situation. But I'd like the laws and the money spent to actually have an impact on mitigating violence. That means they shouldn't be written by people who are unacquainted with the technologies or are unable to project the ramifications of their wording.

Its a "cold war" problem. You don't wander around with a bat when everyone who is likely to be a threat is using a gun. I also keep an emergency stash of food, etc for earthquakes. Does that mean I'm *prepared* for earthquake or that I *fear* an earthquake?

I'll make use of whatever weapons are available in a given situation but saying I'm "afraid" because a shotgun is an excellent tool for home defense purposes simply tells me someone doesn't want to actually discuss the topic, they simply want to label me so they feel better.

You? I know you well enough to know that you're a preparer, not a worry wort. You're not the type of person that gets caught up in the trappings of society. To put it another way, you think.

But even you can admit that in many cases "security" is tied to fear, and it's not just guns. People surrender rights through fear, they vote against their own interests out of fear, they buy stuff they don't need out of fear. There are a lot of terrified people out there, often for no reason at all, or at least for silly ones like North Korea invading America or something. Maybe the President is actually a reptile monster? Meh.

You and I can easily sit here and discuss rational, reasoned out ways of preventing future tragedies without all the kneejerking and blame that accompanies this kind of stuff. But you and I both know that while a person can be smart, people are dumb, panicky creatures who couldn't handle the truth even if it was delivered straight from honest Abe's mouth.

And right now that's exactly what the nation is doing - not thinking, and panicking lots. They're sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes real tight, and shouting make it stop, make it stop, make it stop. Blame flies, reasons get bullshitted, and everyone feels good about "activism" while pretending meaningless gestures and posturing in front of cameras and internet blogs matter somehow. Certainly no way to honor the fallen, but coming from a family of vets, I'm not surprised at that, sadly.

I'm more concerned whether or not the "sacrifice" will actually make any real difference. Banning "evil black rifles" and high-capacity magazines will not stop this. Real change has to come--real change to public healthcare, to education, to the entire paradigm of gun control laws. The existing laws are worthless. We don't need more "feel-good" laws that clearly demonstrate the lawmakers behind them don't know shit about firearms.

Even with all of this, even if we can stand to look in the mirror long enough to pick out all the cracks and flaws so we can fix them, a lock only keeps out an honest man. If someone wants to kill bad enough, they will not stop even if they have to bash out their victims' brains with a rock.

Even without any access to a gun, it's easy enough to make dangerous explosive devices with things that aren't even regulated or tracked at all. Anyone who's ever taken a chemistry class would know how to do it.

I whole heartedly agree with you on this and acknowledged as such briefly in my few posts in this thread. Gun bans or arming everyone are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a horrible situation that does not even begin to address so many issues that drive such madness. There is no short term solution. And government and their laws are just empty words on papers. So who does it fall back to if we are seeking any kind of solutions?

There is a huge public awareness for breast cancer and AIDS. Many states are actively making massive headways against smoking and drunk driving. States are also actively engaging in changing behavior such as not wearing seat belts or distracted driving and etc. Changing behavior is doable.

To answer my own question, it has to be us. It's pretty much whatever we will decide on what kind of change we want.

__________________

Eat and sleep!Sig by RRW.Nanatsu no Taizai! Why haven't you watched it?Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.

Right. I'm not afraid of losing my guns--I don't even own any right now, due to financial circumstances. I'm more afraid of people being mollified by legislation that does nothing to solve the problem, a snake-oil panacea that doesn't do a thing and lets everyone drop their guard.

Talking heads who get on camera and talk about banning this or that mean-looking gun, and then another mass shooting happens not too long afterwards...